Inexperienced males vs females with too much experience

[Emilia]

 

As for women with experience they can just lie and say they are a virgin. There is no magic number for what society considers a slutt but depedning on where you live it can be 1-100 who knows. Society does love to hate women for having to much sex.

 

It never occured to me to hide my experience since I have always seen it as a positive but I have no idea how to pretend to be a virgin. I don't know how you 'unlearn' what you know and pretend you are new to dating and sex.

[ThaWholigan]

Inexperienced men will in general be bad at dating. Now to say its because of their inexperience wouldn't be entirely true. Their inexperience is often caused by their bad social skills in the first place

 

Precisely. An inexperienced man who is charming as well as good looking would certainly be an anomaly to a lot of women....

 

I do. Most of the time I have a certain impression of someone, I give them a chance and get to know them only to revert to the very first impression made. However, it is usually based on more than someone's shoes.

 

One would imagine so. There are some women out there who are suckers for a man with a fashion sense (I meet so much girls that complain that guys "don't have swagger") I am generally an analytical person, but my intuition has yet to fail me more than it has aided me.

Edited December 28, 2011 by ThaWholigan

[Emilia]

Teasing is quite difficult as it was not something I was good at, so I was always the one being teased as a kid. I hated it, and my immediate reaction was anger, followed swiftly by retreat. That changed when I was 15, time spent with my father and I was completely different. I became immune, even found it funny. The hard part was learning to tease back/banter. Still kinda difficult, but I am much more comfortable with people than I ever have been (Surprisingly I owe that to a 3 year cannabis habit, after which I quit this summer).

 

I was going to get to this bit: I tease for precisely this reason. It allows me to understand how seriously a man takes himself or how good he is at banter/rapport. Nothing too personal, just silly stuff. If you can get comfortable with that, it will help you a great deal I think. With certain type of women at least anyway. It's a sign of social ease.

[zengirl]

I'm not saying that guys should be aggressive. I'm saying that the aggressive, borderline rapist-like men who were the problem that inspired the whole rape/sexual harassment awareness stuff never really changed their ways because someone tried to educate them about being respectful to women, they just kept doing what they wanted regardless. On the flip side, the already passive guys paid attention and just got even more passive.

 

This is kind of absurd.

 

As someone said above, most men are neither crazy, unlistening alpha borderline rapist jerkwads or passive wimpy dishrags. Most men are lovely, complex, interesting fellas who can assert their boundaries, most of the time, in reasonably healthy ways (comparative to what you're saying anyway).

 

The successful and happy man, like the successful and happy woman, is assertive, without being overly aggressive (men can get away with more aggression than women in many situations, whether it's fair or not, so their "overly" might be farther out, sure, but not anywhere near jerk territory), can assert his boundaries and knows what he wants and who he is, and consistently moves towards what he wants in a productive* fashion.

 

*Most of the time; no one is perfect, of course, and we all slip up.

 

Granted, there are differences between how males and females are socialized; oodles of them, but if anything, MEN get more assertiveness training than women.

 

People who sexually harass or whatever caveman stuff you describe are not "strong." They're weak and their weakness scares them. That's why they seek power in weak, demented, twisted ways like rape or sexual harassment. Over-aggression is a sign of weakness, and it always has been. That's why plenty of bullies back down if someone even close to 'their own size' (whatever that means) who they cannot control stands up to them.

 

True strength is a totally different matter. Essentially, over-aggression and being two passive are two sides of the same broken coin. It is dysfunctional people who engage in both.

[Dust]

It never occured to me to hide my experience since I have always seen it as a positive but I have no idea how to pretend to be a virgin. I don't know how you 'unlearn' what you know and pretend you are new to dating and sex.

 

You wouldn't have to hide it from me, but if you wanted to its your right! As oposed to the virgin man who in most cases is a virgin because he has social awkwardness that make it obvious. Not to mention these men often feel then need to tell the woman they date once a decade of their virginity on a first date...

 

People who sexually harass or whatever caveman stuff you describe are not "strong." They're weak and their weakness scares them. That's why they seek power in weak, demented, twisted ways like rape or sexual harassment. Over-aggression is a sign of weakness, and it always has been. That's why plenty of bullies back down if someone even close to 'their own size' (whatever that means) who they cannot control stands up to them.

 

True strength is a totally different matter. Essentially, over-aggression and being two passive are two sides of the same broken coin. It is dysfunctional people who engage in both.

 

Yes I agree overly passive and over-aggressive are two sides of the same broken coin. The rapist is probably a very weak man in many ways.

 

As oposed to the caveman days or some conquering pirate, army general etc... no now are rapist hide in bushes to tackle women on their run or befriend women so they trick them into being alone etc.

 

Now on some of the other stuff you said I disagree. I think sexual harrasment and women getting special treatment is bs. I think as a man you have to look out for yourself but at the same time you can't be some woman programmed person. You have to be willing to tell a girl to give you a little spin and call her sexy what ever when the time is right.

[ThaWholigan]

I was going to get to this bit: I tease for precisely this reason. It allows me to understand how seriously a man takes himself or how good he is at banter/rapport. Nothing too personal, just silly stuff. If you can get comfortable with that, it will help you a great deal I think. With certain type of women at least anyway. It's a sign of social ease.

 

Agreed. Ease in a social setting is something I had to earn. Being a musician helped a great deal, when you display such a skill, people tend to want to talk to you by default. I noticed a pattern with one particular girl that whenever I was able to respond to her teasing/banter, the conversation got better, but when I wasn't feeling confident and not responding in the right way, conversation would get weird.

[fortyninethousand322]

This is kind of absurd.

 

As someone said above, most men are neither crazy, unlistening alpha borderline rapist jerkwads or passive wimpy dishrags. Most men are lovely, complex, interesting fellas who can assert their boundaries, most of the time, in reasonably healthy ways (comparative to what you're saying anyway).

 

The successful and happy man, like the successful and happy woman, is assertive, without being overly aggressive (men can get away with more aggression than women in many situations, whether it's fair or not, so their "overly" might be farther out, sure, but not anywhere near jerk territory), can assert his boundaries and knows what he wants and who he is, and consistently moves towards what he wants in a productive* fashion.

 

*Most of the time; no one is perfect, of course, and we all slip up.

 

Granted, there are differences between how males and females are socialized; oodles of them, but if anything, MEN get more assertiveness training than women.

 

People who sexually harass or whatever caveman stuff you describe are not "strong." They're weak and their weakness scares them. That's why they seek power in weak, demented, twisted ways like rape or sexual harassment. Over-aggression is a sign of weakness, and it always has been. That's why plenty of bullies back down if someone even close to 'their own size' (whatever that means) who they cannot control stands up to them.

 

True strength is a totally different matter. Essentially, over-aggression and being two passive are two sides of the same broken coin. It is dysfunctional people who engage in both.

 

I love how people don't actually read what I write and instead read what they think I have written.

 

What I was trying to say (and I believe I was quite clear with this) was that teaching men in a classroom (via sex ed or some kind of after school special) to be respectful and reserved around women (the kind of stuff I was taught in school) because they don't like aggressive men is likely to not be effective at all. The aggressive men they are trying to change with such efforts aren't going to magically change because a sex ed teacher in 9th grade said they should, those men are going to continue their misbehavior regardless. Someone who is bad in that way is not going to learn to not be bad, they are simply lost causes. Meanwhile, men are more inclined to be passive, whether out of nature or because they have no assertive father figure at home to teach them are going to be negatively effected by such efforts at making men more cognizant of boundaries: they will become more passive than before. I mean, do you really believe that telling a guy who is sexually aggressive (in a bad way) and likes to abuse people that "no means no" and women should be respected will work? Those guys will be jerks regardless, a bad seed is a bad seed.

 

And for the record SOME men get more training at being assertive, perhaps even the majority, but I'd wager the men who have trouble with women and dating did not get that assertiveness training. And, while women can survive the dating world without being assertive, men will be essentially crippled.

Edited December 28, 2011 by fortyninethousand322

[zengirl]

Now on some of the other stuff you said I disagree. I think sexual harrasment and women getting special treatment is bs. I think as a man you have to look out for yourself but at the same time you can't be some woman programmed person. You have to be willing to tell a girl to give you a little spin and call her sexy what ever when the time is right.

 

Huh? I never said that women should get special treatment. I believe both men AND women (and yes, men do get sexually harassed) have a right to a workplace free of sexual harassment --- and every other kind of harassment.

 

That said, calling someone sexy or asking them to spin for you in the workplace is, generally, inappropriate, unless you know the person well enough to know they'll be fine with it---and that's true if a woman does it to a man as well. I don't want special treatment in a workplace, personally; I want professionalism, and such things are simply not professional. When I worked in advertising, it was a pretty profane world, versus where I now work in education (the tamest of the tame), but profanity doesn't always mean genuine harassment, of course. Still, there's no excuse for not treating others with respect.

 

What I was trying to say (and I believe I was quite clear with this) was that teaching men in a classroom (via sex ed or some kind of after school special) to be respectful and reserved around women (the kind of stuff I was taught in school) because they don't like aggressive men is likely to not be effective at all. The aggressive men they are trying to change with such efforts aren't going to magically change because a sex ed teacher in 9th grade said they should, those men are going to continue their misbehavior regardless. Someone who is bad in that way is not going to learn to not be bad, they are simply lost causes. Meanwhile, men are more inclined to be passive, whether out of nature or because they have no assertive father figure at home to teach them are going to be negatively effected by such efforts at making men more cognizant of boundaries: they will become more passive than before.

 

And for the record SOME men get more training at being assertive, perhaps even the majority, but I'd wager the men who have trouble with women and dating did not get that assertiveness training. And, while women can survive the dating world without being assertive, men will be essentially crippled.

 

Your statements on assertiveness are somewhat true, though I think women have to be more and more assertive these days, in dating and career, and there is still no focus on teaching women to be that way as girls, whereas MOST boys are socialized to be assertive, which --- as you say --- leaves those who are not at an even greater disadvantage.

 

As to a classroom sex ed course. . . I would say those are effective on exactly nobody, sure, nor are they good at making passive men more passive though. I think they are absolute time wasters. Make a policy, have procedures to investigate complaints, strictly enforce it when broken with appropriate consequences, and cut out the crappy 80s hair videos of sexual harassment. Sure, tell people what it is and not to do it, but it's just basic professionalism. If someone cannot be professional and appropriate in an environment, fire them --- there are 10 people out there who can do their job and be appropriate and would be glad to have it. Not that hard today.

 

That said, the VAST majority of men (and women) don't sexually harass or rape people, so I'm not super sure what the point of looking at such twisted outliers is. I mean, there was a day when maybe average men were sexist and sexually harassed everything in a skirt, but that was ages ago. Most men today don't do this, and it's outliers of either gender that would even consider it.

 

ETA: As far as being "respectful and reserved," well, it depends on what you mean. I think teaching everyone to be respectful towards everyone is never harmful. . . it doesn't harm any kind of man or woman. Reserved is an odd trait, in men or women, to hear moralized that way. There are situations where reserve is useful and situations where it's a hindrance.

Edited December 28, 2011 by zengirl

[aj22one]

I love how people don't actually read what I write and instead read what they think I have written.

 

What I was trying to say (and I believe I was quite clear with this) was that teaching men in a classroom (via sex ed or some kind of after school special) to be respectful and reserved around women (the kind of stuff I was taught in school) because they don't like aggressive men is likely to not be effective at all. The aggressive men they are trying to change with such efforts aren't going to magically change because a sex ed teacher in 9th grade said they should, those men are going to continue their misbehavior regardless. Someone who is bad in that way is not going to learn to not be bad, they are simply lost causes. Meanwhile, men are more inclined to be passive, whether out of nature or because they have no assertive father figure at home to teach them are going to be negatively effected by such efforts at making men more cognizant of boundaries: they will become more passive than before. I mean, do you really believe that telling a guy who is sexually aggressive (in a bad way) and likes to abuse people that "no means no" and women should be respected will work? Those guys will be jerks regardless, a bad seed is a bad seed.

 

And for the record SOME men get more training at being assertive, perhaps even the majority, but I'd wager the men who have trouble with women and dating did not get that assertiveness training. And, while women can survive the dating world without being assertive, men will be essentially crippled.

 

Absolutely. Attempts at feminizing men or making them more attentive to the needs of women is never going to work. You have to be a man.

 

I also laugh at the double standards we have about sex. If a man sleeps around it's gross, but if a woman does she's merely expressing her sexuality. If a guy is a virgin, it's a red flag, meanwhile a female virgin just needs to find the right guy who won't care about that. As a guy you have to be aware of these double standards and know that in a lot of ways the world has changed to make you more disadvantaged than you were before.

[fortyninethousand322]

 

Your statements on assertiveness are somewhat true, though I think women have to be more and more assertive these days, in dating and career, and there is still no focus on teaching women to be that way as girls, whereas MOST boys are socialized to be assertive, which --- as you say --- leaves those who are not at an even greater disadvantage.

 

As to a classroom sex ed course. . . I would say those are effective on exactly nobody, sure, nor are they good at making passive men more passive though. I think they are absolute time wasters. Make a policy, have procedures to investigate complaints, strictly enforce it when broken with appropriate consequences, and cut out the crappy 80s hair videos of sexual harassment. Sure, tell people what it is and not to do it, but it's just basic professionalism. If someone cannot be professional and appropriate in an environment, fire them --- there are 10 people out there who can do their job and be appropriate and would be glad to have it. Not that hard today.

 

That said, the VAST majority of men (and women) don't sexually harass or rape people, so I'm not super sure what the point of looking at such twisted outliers is. I mean, there was a day when maybe average men were sexist and sexually harassed everything in a skirt, but that was ages ago. Most men today don't do this, and it's outliers of either gender that would even consider it.

 

ETA: As far as being "respectful and reserved," well, it depends on what you mean. I think teaching everyone to be respectful towards everyone is never harmful. . . it doesn't harm any kind of man or woman. Reserved is an odd trait, in men or women, to hear moralized that way. There are situations where reserve is useful and situations where it's a hindrance.

 

A man who is not socialized to be assertive, specifically with regards to dating is going to be greatly effected by videos and lectures in a classroom that teach him that sex is something dirty and shameful. That only jerks (who pressure women into sex) and slutty women have sex or express themselves sexually prior to marriage. Perhaps it's merely reflective of the kind of sex ed I endured from 4th-10th grade. And because neither or my parents ever bothered to discuss the issue with me, the only thing I knew about sex was from sex ed. It wasn't until I was about 19 or so that I was even aware that any of my friends were sexually active.

 

Maybe I should have opened my eyes or been a little more aware of what was going on but I had no frame of reference to go on. This is what I mean by making passive men more passive. In prior generations I think men who were on the fence between passive and assertive got that extra nudge in the assertive direction by parents/adult figures and peers, nowadays I think that nudge has gone the other way towards passivity.

[samsungxoxo]

Absolutely. Attempts at feminizing men or making them more attentive to the needs of women is never going to work. You have to be a man.

Being respectful is feminizing men but a trait everyone should have. What can be so difficult to understand that a NO is a NO.

I also laugh at the double standards we have about sex. If a man sleeps around it's gross, but if a woman does she's merely expressing her sexuality.

Nope it's actually the opposite. If a man sleeps around he gets praised and his buddies treat it like it were an eating contest when it's really not something benefial such as having a stable job/career, going travel and meeting different cultures, etc. If a woman does it then it's gross and it's like she can only be praised if she's one of those ''virgin till marriage''.

If a guy is a virgin, it's a red flag, meanwhile a female virgin just needs to find the right guy who won't care about that. As a guy you have to be aware of these double standards and know that in a lot of ways the world has changed to make you more disadvantaged than you were before.

But you can get away with the double-standard of sleeping around.

[Dust]

A man who is not socialized to be assertive, specifically with regards to dating is going to be greatly effected by videos and lectures in a classroom that teach him that sex is something dirty and shameful. That only jerks (who pressure women into sex) and slutty women have sex or express themselves sexually prior to marriage. Perhaps it's merely reflective of the kind of sex ed I endured from 4th-10th grade. And because neither or my parents ever bothered to discuss the issue with me, the only thing I knew about sex was from sex ed. It wasn't until I was about 19 or so that I was even aware that any of my friends were sexually active.

 

Maybe I should have opened my eyes or been a little more aware of what was going on but I had no frame of reference to go on. This is what I mean by making passive men more passive. In prior generations I think men who were on the fence between passive and assertive got that extra nudge in the assertive direction by parents/adult figures and peers, nowadays I think that nudge has gone the other way towards passivity.

 

Ok well don't worry about every one else. Your eyes are oppened to the pitfalls of living life by a sexual harrasment seminar. So be yourself and remember if she says you grabbed her ass deny! deny! deny!

[aj22one]

Being respectful is feminizing men but a trait everyone should have. What can be so difficult to understand that a NO is a NO.

 

Nothing wrong with no means no, but the attitude that anything less than a yes is a no is largely incorrect. IME, many women like being chased. Not in a harassing manner of course, but they don't want men giving up before the race even began.

 

 

Nope it's actually the opposite. If a man sleeps around he gets praised and his buddies treat it like it were an eating contest when it's really not something benefial such as having a stable job/career, going travel and meeting different cultures, etc. If a woman does it then it's gross and it's like she can only be praised if she's one of those ''virgin till marriage''.

 

Who does that? If a buddy of mine slept around I'd think he was gross. Every woman I've ever had sex with was a girl I was in a relationship with, and I think everyone should approach sex that way. You have a very unhealthy and inaccurate opinion of most men.

 

But you can get away with the double-standard of sleeping around.

 

Anyone can really. And I don't sleep around and would judge anyone who did in the same way. Just as I view virgins of both genders in the same way: a case by case basis.

[zengirl]

A man who is not socialized to be assertive, specifically with regards to dating is going to be greatly effected by videos and lectures in a classroom that teach him that sex is something dirty and shameful.

 

How does a sexual harassment video teach one sex is dirty and shameful? What it teaches you is that harassment is dirty and shameful (and it is). Sexual harassment is NOT about sex; it's about power. Just like rape is not really about sex; it's about rage.

 

Sex is lovely. So, I would say anyone getting that the "sex" in the sexual harassment is the bad part is missing the point. ALL harassment is pretty crap, including sexual harassment. Do people think that verbal harassment means that words are shameful? It's confusing to me how you went there is all.

 

I don't buy for one second that men are being "crippled" in their dating lives by learning harassing people in the workplace is bad.

 

That only jerks (who pressure women into sex) and slutty women have sex or express themselves sexually prior to marriage.

 

Now that message is some sex-shaming I agree is bad, but I've never seen that message in a sexual harassment seminar. I just think bringing in "sexual harassment" is not really what you mean.

 

I do agree that sex-shaming in general (for men or women) is unproductive to a healthy sex life, whether it be shame over too much or too little sex.

[fortyninethousand322]

How does a sexual harassment video teach one sex is dirty and shameful? What it teaches you is that harassment is dirty and shameful (and it is). Sexual harassment is NOT about sex; it's about power. Just like rape is not really about sex; it's about rage.

 

Sex is lovely. So, I would say anyone getting that the "sex" in the sexual harassment is the bad part is missing the point. ALL harassment is pretty crap, including sexual harassment. Do people think that verbal harassment means that words are shameful? It's confusing to me how you went there is all.

 

I don't buy for one second that men are being "crippled" in their dating lives by learning harassing people in the workplace is bad.

 

 

 

Now that message is some sex-shaming I agree is bad, but I've never seen that message in a sexual harassment seminar. I just think bringing in "sexual harassment" is not really what you mean.

 

I do agree that sex-shaming in general (for men or women) is unproductive to a healthy sex life, whether it be shame over too much or too little sex.

 

Sexual harassment is but one thing I was talking about. Sex shaming and sexual harassment, rape, date rape, women not wanting sex ever, etc. is all taught together in sex ed where I grew up. So it's not just about sexual harassment only. Sorry for the confusion.

[dasein]

Who does that? If a buddy of mine slept around I'd think he was gross.

 

The whole double standard of promiscuous men being glorified while promiscuous women are stigmatized is just another feminist lie with no underlying truth. There can only be a double standard between two very similarly situated groups, and the genders are so differently situated in how they seek and obtain sex as to be apples and oranges. On those grounds, no double standard is even possible.

 

Moreoever, arguendo, were a double standard possible, it ceased to exist long ago. Women who have normal sex lives with multiple partners over their lives are no more stigmatized than men are. Wildly and impulsively promiscuous people of either gender are equally stigmatized today.

 

Why do they keep bringing the absurdity up? It allows them to rationalize their impulsive, compulsive promiscuity by dismissing it as "well boys do it too" when only a tiny percentage of men are even capable of being promiscuous to the degree most any woman is. It's just another tired, stale feminist sacred cow that needs to be dragged out into the light.

[zengirl]

Sexual harassment is but one thing I was talking about. Sex shaming and sexual harassment, rape, date rape, women not wanting sex ever, etc. is all taught together in sex ed where I grew up. So it's not just about sexual harassment only. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Okay, I think maybe whatever they taught you was pretty messed up for combining all that together. I'm all for teaching people that violence, including and perhaps especially sexual violence, is not okay. I'm all for teaching people that harassment, including sexual harassment, is not okay. I'm all for teaching people to respect each other. That's all GOOD stuff. But I don't get what it has to do with the fallacy of sex shame and women never wanting sex, but I guess if they wrapped it all up together and taught it so oddly, then I see where your confusion is.

 

My point is/was putting those thoughts together and making them interrelated is the problem, but now I see that YOU aren't actively doing that, but rather that's just what they did. . . which is weird. I don't think teaching people, "sexual harassment is bad," would make them weird about sex EXCEPT maybe if you also wrap it up in lots of weird ideas about sex that have nothing to do with sexual harassment when you say it. Which is something your sex ed did oddly, yes.

[samsungxoxo]

Who does that? If a buddy of mine slept around I'd think he was gross. Every woman I've ever had sex with was a girl I was in a relationship with, and I think everyone should approach sex that way. You have a very unhealthy and inaccurate opinion of most men.

I actually think it's gross for people (men and women) to sleep around and would lose respect for them. I wouldn't date a man with a promiscuous past. I'm only saying that's the double-standard that has been displayed for years. A man sleeping around is known as a stud and for a woman, the word being used is slut.

Anyone can really.

Really? When have you heard of a woman proudly admitting to her female friends about sleeping around with tons of men? While some men that do that, go to bars and talk to their buddies about it.

And I don't sleep around and would judge anyone who did in the same way. Just as I view virgins of both genders in the same way: a case by case basis.

Good... I don't sleep around either. Ok on that one, we're on the same page.

[samsungxoxo]

The whole double standard of promiscuous men being glorified while promiscuous women are stigmatized is just another feminist lie with no underlying truth.

No it's reality. If that's how it supposely was long ago and now ''ceased'' when why are there still men with promiscuous past demanding woman that are either low in experience or virgins? If they get nothing but promiscuous women like just like them, they complain.

That's like them saying ''Well my past shouldn't matter'' but act like a cop when it comes to a woman's number. They have no rights to complain in this case. Hypocrites

 

Also why are they quickly to lable the promiscuous women ugly names? IMO they are gross too.

[zengirl]

Personally, I think most people in my crowd are pretty sane about promiscuity wherever they fall -- if they find it gross for either gender, they find it gross for both and they don't engage in it, or they're cool with whatever anyone does. Either of those viewpoints suit me fine. I'm not into promiscuity and am glad my SO felt the same, but I don't really care what people in general do.

 

Really? When have you heard of a woman proudly admitting to her female friends about sleeping around with tons of men? While some men that do that, go to bars and talk to their buddies about it.

 

Though to be fair, I have quite a few friends who don't hide their exploits. Granted, they don't sleep with tons of men perse, but they do talk about sex --- even casual sex --- in bars, amusingly, SATC style, so it does happen, to a degree. Though I don't know any girl who's actually slept with tons of men who does this --- the one girl I know who has a really high number is a total hippie zen Buddhist traveling-the-world free love kinda gal, and she just doesn't think of things that way.

[dasein]

If that's how it supposely was long ago and now ''ceased'' when why are there still men with promiscuous past demanding woman that are either low in experience or virgins?

 

As far as virgins go, haven't ever heard of -any- man in my experience past the age of 20 demanding that, even among religious fundamentalists.

 

As I have already posted women/men = apples/oranges where seeking and obtaining sex is concerned. Only a very tiny % of men are even capable of being promiscuous to the level promiscuous women are, and those men are judged equally... unless they are rich, handsome, tall and powerful, and then women don't care, which speaks to the poor judgment of women who hop into bed with Charlie Sheen or any celebrity really, not to the relatively better judgment of men with respect to such matters.

[LTP]

It's because I think it's really telling that someone without serious relationship experience could google love and pick that quote as something they feel appropriately describes the feelings. It just goes to the exact reason why I am not comfortable dating someone without experience: they have unreasonable expectations as to what being in love and in a healthy relationship entails.

 

At no time did anyone in this thread say they expected something like that all the time, unless I somehow missed it. Why so many generalizations?

[LTP]

I'm becoming one of those women with lots of experience. Since May 2010, (roughly the past year and a half), I've had five sex partners. My total # of sex partners is 11.

 

About 24-25 year old virgins. I think that's kind of late, but I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with the person. I just think they've waited. If they're still a virgin past 25, though, that's kind of weird to me.

 

I lost my virginity when I was 20 (five months shy of being 21), which I think is a perfect age. Not too young, not too old.

 

19's good, too, actually. Objectively speaking, I think anywhere between 18 and 22 is reasonable.

 

I know people find 16 and 17 year olds having sex acceptable (and it's kind of the norm nowadays), but I think it's a little too soon for it.

 

You have a range of just 5 years 18-22 which is "reasonable" and 16-25 is "acceptable" to you and 20 is "ideal" since that's when you lost yours. I just don't get why it's so awful if someone waits until after 25. Why does everyone have to conform to the norms of society or be deemed weird or worse.

[LTP]

But I wasn't speaking of morality, really. There are greater reasons, than just the moral reasons, not to sleep with someone who's married. There are also practical reasons, personal reasons, and so forth. There's nothing immoral whatsoever in being a virgin, in my worldview (though morality is such a random concept, as it varies in various societies and views) but it's a large piece of information that it is immoral to withhold. Just like if you started dating someone but you had a non-curable disease (not an STD, but just your personal health); at a certain point, that'd be important to disclose for the sake of honesty.

 

If you're holding something back intentionally because someone else might "judge" you, you're lying.

 

How is it immoral to withhold being a virgin and how can you compare to someone withholding that they have an STD? You sleep with someone who has an STD and you may get it which is a very bad thing. You sleep with someone who is a virgin and what bad can become of it? You are quick to give the experienced a pass, but when it comes to virgins not telling you is lying. Your and others refusal to say that it is not an issue is usually why men will not be forthcoming about it.

[oaks]

Which is worse?

 

I dunno, but I'd never date a man with no experience.